Adds HAProxy Kubernetes Ingress Controller to Gateway API Implementat…

[NickMRamirez]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #2779

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

-->

* DOCUMENTATION: Added HAProxy Kubernetes Ingress Controller to Gateway API Implementations page.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: haproxytechblog (9ca2a17)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @NickMRamirez. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[NickMRamirez]

@robscott To your question "have you tried running conformance tests with your implementation yet?" I am asking our developers about that. Is there any guide on how to do it?

[NickMRamirez]

According to our developers, since our implementation uses Gateway API v0.5.1, we didn't find conformance tests relevant to our implementation. That version has tests only for HTTPRoute and gateway secrets. Our implementation is only for TCPRoute so far.

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/tree/v0.5.1/conformance/tests

[shaneutt]

Hey @NickMRamirez 👋

Just curious if you could help us better understand the distinction between this and the other HAProxy entry? (in as much detail as feasible if you would please, thank you!)

[robscott]

Thanks @NickMRamirez!

Our implementation is only for TCPRoute so far.

I'd recommend noting that in the description of your implementation here.

our implementation uses Gateway API v0.5.1

I'd recommend testing your implementation with newer versions of Gateway API. All API changes would have been backwards compatible, so it's likely you can claim support for Gateway API v1.0 without any changes to your code.

Just curious if you could help us better understand the distinction between this and the other HAProxy entry?

This is the official HAProxy implementation while the one currently listed is a community implementation maintained by @jcmoraisjr https://github.com/jcmoraisjr/haproxy-ingress. As far as I can tell, that one supports GatewayClass, Gateway, and HTTPRoute, while the one that's being added here supports TCPRoute and not HTTPRoute. It would likely be good to find some way to more clearly distinguish the names here - open to suggestions from @NickMRamirez or @jcmoraisjr.

/ok-to-test

[NickMRamirez]

@robscott ,

I'd recommend noting that in the description of your implementation here.

My concern here is that the implementation and Gateway API version it's based on are subject to change. My feeling is that it's better for the user to go to the docs for the project and see what's new there. What do you think?

I'll pass along the idea to test against v1.0 to the developers.

You are correct about the two HAProxy implementations. Naming is tricky. It's certainly something we've contended with, since users do get confused by the two projects. But after a lot of discussion, we haven't come up with a solution, unfortunately.

[robscott]

My concern here is that the implementation and Gateway API version it's based on are subject to change. My feeling is that it's better for the user to go to the docs for the project and see what's new there. What do you think?

I think the vast majority of implementations in this list support HTTPRoute and do not support TCPRoute, so unless you're working to change that sometime soon, it could be useful to call out the difference and save prospective users some time. Certainly not a requirement though.

This will all eventually be resolved when @xtineskim completes #2550, which should show the features that all implementations support, as long as they've submitted a conformance report - see https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/geps/gep-1709/ for more. As you note though, TCP is definitely a gap in our conformance coverage right now, so until we resolve that, mentioning support directly is probably the best path.

With all that said, it's great to see another implementation here. Feel free to submit follow up PRs if you'd like to tweak anything, but I think this is good to go as is.

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: NickMRamirez, robscott

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• site-src/OWNERS [robscott]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[shaneutt]

We don't need to block this PR for it, but at some point we should go back to our discussions about orgs with multiple Gateway API projects, as there may be some better ways we can provide display and organization for users who find their way into the page.

[NickMRamirez]

Thanks all!